On 17/04/2019 00:01, James Almer wrote: > On 4/16/2019 7:57 PM, Mark Thompson wrote: >> On 15/04/2019 22:17, James Almer wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c b/libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c >>> index e74f8dce81..a205293b3c 100644 >>> --- a/libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c >>> +++ b/libavcodec/cbs_h2645.c >>> @@ -255,6 +255,8 @@ static int cbs_write_se_golomb(CodedBitstreamContext >>> *ctx, PutBitContext *pbc, >>> #define flag(name) u(1, name, 0, 1) >>> #define ue(name, range_min, range_max) \ >>> xue(name, current->name, range_min, range_max, 0) >>> +#define i(width, name, range_min, range_max) \ >>> + xi(width, name, current->name, range_min, range_max, 0) >> >> I know it's right, but defining "i" as a macro feels like a pretty terrible >> idea in C :P > > Eh, i guess :p. It at least didn't blow up here. > > What would be best? s? su like in cbs_av1? Something else?
To clarify, I do think it's correct to call it i() here to match the H.26[45] standards. Any other option would probably be more confusing. And, as you note, it actually doesn't blow up because none of the many uses of i are followed by (. - Mark _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
